Simulators as an Innovative Strategy in the Teaching of Physics in Higher Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for all your observations and suggestions. They have been extremely helpful in improving our manuscript. We have attached a document with detailed descriptions of the corrective actions taken in response to each of your recommendations.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents research on first-year university engineering students. The students have two practical sessions within five weeks and should elaborate on practice reports. In this study, an experimental group of students, in the practical sessions, worked with animated interactive computer models (PhET and JavaLab), while the control group worked in a physics laboratory, traditionally, with real equipment (flexometers and turntables are mentioned). The impact on motivation and self-efficacy was measured with a hypothesis that both will increase. The article concludes that simulators like PhET positively impact students' motivation and do not reduce self-efficacy.

The article's main weakness is missing information about the course's goals and aims. A reader can imagine a traditional physics course for engineers. However, in such a course, conventional laboratory methods (such as work with real apparatus, real measurements, and hands-on activities) can be imagined as an integral part of the course – at least on the level of demonstrations, with some innovations towards measuring sensors and computer data processing of such data from real apparatus. Of course, if the course is not oriented to such real experiments, PhET demonstrations are proven to be perfect for learning physics and increasing most science process skills. Instead of the statements generally accepted by the professional public written on the first page, such information in the introduction could focus the reader's attention on the course. The reason for selecting simulators as an innovative strategy (and not other digital tools available, doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-44312-1_5 ) could also be better specified in the introduction.

 In the article, there are too many overgeneralisations. Both activities in the research were on topics where students have enough empirical experience. Computer simulations on projectile motion and circular motion activate, in the minds of the students of that age, enough empirical knowledge (and also theoretical knowledge), so there is no need for work on a real apparatus. Moreover, working with an animated model on a computer can raise the attention of the students and can act as a refresher for the course. The facts mentioned in the article cannot assure the reader that the results are true in other, much more abstract physics concepts and topics.

I highly appreciate the fact that raising self-efficacy is researched in physics courses. Besides the pre-test and post-test, it could be helpful to look at the processes behind the rise of self-efficacy; having 29 students in the experimental group could also allow methods such as observation or discussion to look at the processes deeper doi: 10.33225/jbse/18.17.04.

The translation and other work on adapting the scales would be more readable in one part of the methodology or probably in a separate article. The discussion would be more readable if it focused only on the research objectives and not on the development of the tests.

Author Response

Thank you for all your observations and suggestions. They have been extremely helpful in improving our manuscript. We have attached a document with detailed descriptions of the corrective actions taken in response to each of your recommendations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review Report

Article title: Simulators as an Innovative Strategy in the Teaching of Physics in Higher Education

The authors present the results of a research focused on physics teaching in higher education. The primary objective of this research was to assess the effectiveness of Physics Education Technology (PhET) and JavaLab simulators as instructional tools for teaching physics concepts, explicitly comparing their impact on student motivation and self-efficacy to that of traditional laboratory practices for university students in Mexico.

The research topic is very actual and interesting. The use of technology, in fact, provides new opportunities in various areas of life, including in the academic field.

The content of the research is adequate and contextualized with respect to the previous and present theoretical background and empirical research on the topic. The research design and methods are clearly stated. Arguments and discussions of findings are balanced. The results of the research are clearly presented. The article is adequately referenced. The conclusions are fully supported by the results presented in the article. The issues are described below.    

Specific comments:

 

1.     It would be useful to inform the reader, in more detail, about the content of teaching in the experimental and control groups. You should present the exact procedures that were followed during teaching.

 

Author Response

Thank you for all your observations and suggestions. They have been extremely helpful in improving our manuscript. We have attached a document with detailed descriptions of the corrective actions taken in response to each of your recommendations.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is significantly improved. 

Thank you for the clear detailed table with information on how the recommendations were applied.

Please, check the format of references,

for example, https://colab.ws/articles/10.1007%2F978-3-031-44312-1_5 seems to be not the optimal link, official is:  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44312-1_5 and the oficial citation (book chapter) is here: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-44312-1_5#citeas

another example, Dimitrov...(2003) seems to be: Dimitrov DM, Rumrill PD Jr. Pretest-posttest designs and measurement of change. Work. 2003;20(2):159-65. PMID: 12671209.

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions. The document shows the descriptions of the corrective actions taken regarding your recommendations.